Gangadhar Sharma v. Pseb Now Punjab State Electricity Corp. Ltd. And ORS.
!!"#$ %&
'
(
(
& )#* #$& & +, * )# - .
/ 0 +)#)1#2 * )#- / / 0 !)"* * )#- / 0 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced?
YES - 3(
!
""""
#
$
)
*$ +* -
(
'
!
%2 %3 #455
$ %2 %3 #455 %' %4 #45& .
)
*$ +* -
.
$
.
7
)
+
(-
. (
Per contra,
) $
. (
)
/
:
Whether service rendered by appellant from 07.04.1955 to 30.05.1991 as work charge would be counted for pensionary benefits.
whether the civil suit filed for pensionary benefits is barred by limitation?
res integra & ! )
$
!!"#
$ %&'
)
$
;
!
!!"#
$ %&'
(
$
<
6
9
:
"19. In the light of the above, let us examine the validity of rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II. This rule says that the period of service in a work3charged establishment shall not be taken into account in calculating the qualifying service. After the services of a work3charged employee have been regularised he becomes a public servant. The service is under the Government and is paid by it. This is what was precisely stated in the Industrial Award dated June 1, 1972, between the workmen and the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. (B. & R), Establishment Branch, Punjab, Patiala, which was published in the Government Gazette dated July 14, 1972. Even otherwise. the matter was settled by the Punjab Government Memo No.
140953 BRI(3)372/5383 dated 6th February, 1973(Annexure P7) where it was stated that all those work charged employees who had put in ten years of service or more as on 15th August, 1972, their services would be deemed to have been regularised. Once the services of a work3charged employee have been regularised, there appears to be hardly any logic to deprive him of the pensionary benefits as are available to other public servants under Rule 3.17 of the Rules. Equal protection of laws must mean the protection of equal laws for all persons similarly situated.
. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness because a provision which is arbitrary involves the negation equality. Even the temporary or officiating service under the State Government has. to be reckoned for determining the qualifying service. It looks to be illogical that the period of service spent by an employee in a work3charged establishment before his regularisation has not been taken into consideration for determining his qualifying service. The classification which is sought to be made among Government servants who eligible for pension and those who started work3charged employees and their services regularised subsequently, and the others is based on any intelligible criteria and, before, is not sustainable at law. After the services of a work3charged employee have been regularised, he is a public servant like other servant. To deprive him of the pension is not only unjust and inequitable is hit by the vice of arbitrariness, and for se reasons the provisions of sub3rule (ii) of Rule 3.17 of the Rules have to be struck down being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
#% .= 8
$
()
%* !+ , -%!. $
( >9
?
$
:
"6. The pari materia provision contained in Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules had been struck down by a Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in
!!+',/ %0. The challenge by the State against the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was negatived by this Court. The matter came up for consideration before this Court, once again, in the case of 12
/
3
%* *+%, - 0.%4+%* *,5 . 0. While dealing with the said question this Court in paragraph 25 of the report held that the Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was perfectly justified in striking down Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules resulting in obliteration of the distinction made in the said Rules between 'temporary and officiating service' and 'work3 charged service'. On the said basis, this Court took the view that the period of work3charged service should be reckoned for purposes of computation of 'qualifying service' for grant of pension.
7. As already observed, the provisions of Rule 370 of the Civil Service Regulations applicable to the State of Uttarakhand are pari materia with the provisions of Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, discussed above. If that is so, we do not see as to why the period of service rendered on work3charged basis by the appellants should not be counted for purposes of computation of 'qualifying service' for grant of pension. The pari materia provisions of Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules having been interpreted and understood in the above manner by this Court in Narata Singh (supra) we do not find any room for taking any other view except to hold that the appellants are entitled to reckon the period of work3charged service for purposes of computation of 'qualifying service' for grant of pension. We order accordingly; allow these appeals and set aside the impugned orders passed by the High Court."
## 8
%2 %3 #455 0% %5 #44#
9
0 #'
.=
62+ , / 7 8
"
%*%% / /9 + , '.0
(
$
#0 8
#3 8
)
*$ +* -
(
#5 (
229
#/ ,
#2
+-
(
/ / 0
Saahil/Ayub Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No